Our era's American civil rights issue: A milestone on gay discrimination

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,027
29,925
146
I think this is the kind of thing people mean with "activist judges". The people spoke loud and clear with their vote. Since some people find the vote inconvenient, a judge will simply invalidate the will of the people.

and when is it ever valid to allow a majority vote to decide the rights of a minority population? That has been a long-understood problem with democracy.

Civil Rights can never be determined by those that choose to violate them.

The funny thing, the defense in this case was arguing yesterday that "the will of the majority" was ignored. Amazingly, the fucks had the GALL to argue that their "Christian community" is the disenfranchised MINORITY in this case?

seriously, wtf? they argue that they are an exploited minority (which would reason one to assume that they consider themselves and their notions a minority opinion), yet the lose based on an argument of discrimination, and as rebuttal claim that the majority opinion was ignored?

well, wtf is it? They don't even know wtf they believe anymore. The pack of lies that they hide behind in their weak attempt to legislate discrimination and hate is crumbling before them, and the fucks are too inbred and ignorant to realize it.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
What's even more pathetic is using racial inequity and trials and tribulations countless numbers of people have went through in pursut of racial equality as a comparison to a group of people that desire a re-writing of laws/rights/constitution/et al due only to their sexual lifestyle.

Gay != black, another race, a minority, a different color, etc. True minorities don't have a choice in their skin color, ethnicity, disability, gender...homosexual hasn't been proven to be anything other than choice up to this point. Study after study points to environmental (both internal within the home and external within society) influences playing a major part with normal sexual development.

Head down the slippery slope and end up falling off the mountain entirely...

Bullshit. No straight man would choose to enjoy a cock up their ass.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
why do gay people purposely talk differently, lisp/slur their words, act feminine... can't you be gay without that whole charade too?
Most gays do not sound gay

Your behavior is mostly genetic. When Einstein's brain was taken apart and looked at, it was found that the verbal part of the brain was smaller than average while the math/logic part was larger. It's not a mystery why people like Einstein are attracted to math and science fields. People are attracted to what their brain is naturally good at. The stereotype gay guy who likes interior decorating and doing girly things like shopping does these things because he's naturally good at them.


Bullshit. No straight man would choose to enjoy a cock up their ass.
Men enjoy cock up their ass because men have prostates. If you don't enjoy cock up your ass then technically you are not a man. I am sorry for your lots.


There really is no biblical ban on polygamy
Abraham's 3 wives were Sarah, Hagar and Keturah. Men in the bible were hardcore players.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
When it comes to this specific issue I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

How does allowing two people of the same gender to get married have any negative effect on anyone else?

Indeed. I can only conclude that homophobes want the gay people to hide such "behavior" so that their offspring not be exposed to such "behavior" and decide they want to be gay too.

But love is love so????
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,849
5,474
136
No they do not. Please see my earlier post in this thread.


Why should all other forms of marriage be allowed? Does there exist a subset of the citizenry that currently has a right to marry more than one person, or an anmial, or a dumptruck? Who's rights are being denied that are not denied equally of the remaining citizenry?


Does anybody else currently have this right?


Who enjoys the right to marry their sibling?


If they are in the United States they are subject to the laws and ordinances thereof.


If everyone is denied a right equally, then everyone is included, you small-minded twit.


You win the Non Sequitur of the Day Award.

If everyone is denied a right equally, then everyone is included, you small-minded twit.

I agree with your statement. Since all men and women are denied the "right" to same sex marriage, then there is no discrimination. More to the point, this discussion isn't about the right to marry, we all have that, it's about redefining what marriage is. My point being that if we're going to redefine it, lets include everyone.

I find it interesting that you call me small minded, but I'm the guy who want's everyone to enjoy the benefits of marriage, while you want to limit it to a chosen few. It's one of those things that makes you go hmmmmmm.
 

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Men enjoy cock up their ass because men have prostates. If you don't enjoy cock up your ass then technically you are not a man. I am sorry for your lots.
Then I must be the fucking ugliest lesbian next to Rosie O'Donnell.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Since all men and women are denied the "right" to same sex marriage, then there is no discrimination.

Not this nonsense yet *again*.

Let's say that everyone is prohibited from marrying someone 2" taller or shorter than they are.

There's no discrimination, according to you - everyone has the same right to marry anyone within 2" of their height - short and tall alike.

Except that while Bill and Susan, of similar height, can marry, John and Wanda, 4" apart, are unable to marry.

This IS discrimination, saying that one group of people - couples different in height - cannot marry, and have less rights than the rest of society.

The same logic applied to interracial marriages, when supporters of banning it said there's no discrimination - everyone, black and white, has the same right to marry their own race.

Wrong. It's discrimination.

And the question is, does the state have justification for it? For gays - no.
 

jackace

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2004
1,307
0
0
If everyone is denied a right equally, then everyone is included, you small-minded twit.

I agree with your statement. Since all men and women are denied the "right" to same sex marriage, then there is no discrimination. More to the point, this discussion isn't about the right to marry, we all have that, it's about redefining what marriage is. My point being that if we're going to redefine it, lets include everyone.

I find it interesting that you call me small minded, but I'm the guy who want's everyone to enjoy the benefits of marriage, while you want to limit it to a chosen few. It's one of those things that makes you go hmmmmmm.

Yeah I tend to agree with you. Right now everyone has the right to marry, we just restrict it to man marrying woman. If we are going to redefine marriage why don't we just open it up for everyone?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,170
5,731
126
I want to chime in as someone who was raised in a nice strong christian household, and brought up in a culture where they considered "gayness" to be a sin. I would like to think I have gotten past it completely, but I am sure that if we dig deep, I still have some of that upbringing in me.

Most of the people I have met in the churches we went to viewed homosexuality as a person who has "gone astray." Many of them did not view the person as a bad person, just on a wrong path, and believe they can be brought back to a "right path." If you went to them and said you used to be gay, but were brought back by the light of jesus, they would all welcome you in, and probably stick you on metaphorical pedastal for a while as an example of how "right" they were. These people aren't really hating you, they just want to believe they are living their lives correctly, and doing the right thing. They look to their book to figure out what is right, and it comforts them, and they want other people to follow the same path because that comfort leads them to believe it is the only right path.

Then there is a second group of people that made up most of the rest. These people are not so much trying to be sure they are living correctly as they are trying to prove to themselves they are better than others. From my experience these people have two classes of "sin" the stuff they have done is normal, and can be forgiven and no one should remember it, the stuff they have not done is really bad and proves that they are better than others. Almost everyone in the churches I was at fell somewhere in between the two extremes.

Both groups have a critical difference from the classic racist bigots of history. They don't believe the person is inherently inferior. No KKK member would have believed that a black person could repent and become white. The people who fall mostly into the first group are going to be the easiest to bring to a real understanding and tolerance. But, both groups are aware of this difference, and don't believe they are bigots. More importantly, it is probably easier to show them the error of their beliefs. For myself, the biggest thing was just exposure. The stuff they taught me about gay people didn't hold true when I started getting to know more gay people around me.

At first, the only people that I knew were gay were the ones who shoved it in every persons face, and they actually made my impression of gay people worse. For example, one guy I worked with was gay and the only way to describe him is flaming. He was a nice guy most of the time, but I think he knew he made me uncomfortable and he seemed to find it funny to tease me a bit. But, while I know he wasn't serious, when he stroked my shoulder and pretended to hit on me, it made me uncomfortable and reinforced all the negative things they told me about the "gay people."

It was all the people who I didn't realize were gay at first that made the biggest difference. Finding out that people I thought were normal were actually "gay." Started to force me to see that the things I had been told were not true. These people were living normal lives, they weren't "disturbed" or forcing their lifestyle on other people. But, it took several years, and a lot of different people.


I know I have rambled on about this, but I have a point I swear. Most of these people really think they can "help" gay people, and that they need to protect other people from falling off the "good" path. Most of their bigotry is really based on ignorance and bad stereotypes that are reinforced by the most visible gay people. The young people are being brought up with the same views. If you want to break through these barriers you need to approach it slowly, patiently, and nicely. The best things for gay people are when people who are "normal" with good lives come out of the closet, that forces people to see something that they believe shouldn't happen. They think being gay ruins peoples lives, seeing that the world doesn't work the way they believe begins to ruin the foundations of their beliefs. The second best thing is just confronting their beliefs head on, without belittling them. It is not a gay persons fault they are born gay, it is not a bigots fault he was born to christian fundie parents who told him all gay people will burn in hellfire. It is just as if their parents told them that the world was really a glass snowball that god shook to make it rain. They did not come to their beliefs on their own, they were taught them. If they are belittled they will turn to their other christian friends for comfort and confirmation that they are right. They won't believe you when you call them a bigot, so anything else you say won't be believed either. They will believe people who respect them and say nice things to them, they will ignore people who insult them. Each time you talk to them, if you respect them you will only make a small dent in their beliefs, but it will work over time.

Now, some people cannot be reasoned with, but most of these people are merely looking for someone to look down on so they can feel superior to them. These people could probably be brought around on the subject of gay rights, but they will just find another group of people to look down on that they will try to oppress. I don't think Classy falls into this group, but I do think mocking him, and insulting him only drives him away from tolerance.

Good post that sums up things nicely. I wasn't raised from Birth as Christian. Around the age of 12 until approx 18 I was really into it as all but my Father became Born Again. All Christians I knew were certainly sincere in their various beliefs, but certainly some were as you point out humble and respectful, while others were very self righteous and judgmental.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
If everyone is denied a right equally, then everyone is included, you small-minded twit.

I agree with your statement. Since all men and women are denied the "right" to same sex marriage, then there is no discrimination.
Simply inadequate, and irrelevant. Strictly speaking, nobody is suggesting the creation of this thing you call "same-sex marriage." It doesn't exist, so nobody is being denied it. There is only marriage with gender restrictions. What this ruling has done is simply removed those discriminatory restrictions.

More to the point, this discussion isn't about the right to marry, we all have that...
You have the right to marry a female.
Jane has the right to marry a male.

Those are as much "equal rights" as restricting black people to Molson Ice and white people to Chimay Grand Reserve. Hey, they all have the right to beer, right? Blacks just don't have the right to the Chimay... but it's still equal rights.

Do you actually buy that drivel?

it's about redefining what marriage is. My point being that if we're going to redefine it, lets include everyone.
Nobody is excluded once the gender restrictions are removed from marriage.

I find it interesting that you call me small minded,
I find it interesting that you continue to reinforce my claim with every word you write.

but I'm the guy who want's everyone to enjoy the benefits of marriage, while you want to limit it to a chosen few. It's one of those things that makes you go hmmmmmm.
How in the world would removing the current restrictions on who can get married somehow "limit it to a chosen few"? Are you really that dumb?
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,414
1,574
126
Yeah I tend to agree with you. Right now everyone has the right to marry, we just restrict it to man marrying woman. If we are going to redefine marriage why don't we just open it up for everyone?

hm...this sounds familiar...


Interracial marriage means marriage between individuals of different races, e.g. between black and white, or Asian and black, etc. A holdover from slavery and racial bigotry in the United States, marriage between whites and blacks was illegal in many states until such laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967.

In November 2000, Alabama became the last state to overturn a law banning interracial marriage. The one-time home of George Wallace and Martin Luther King Jr. had held onto the provision for 33 years after the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Yet as the election revealed—40 percent of Alabamans voted to keep the ban—apparently many Alabamans still see the necessity for a law that prohibits blacks and whites from mixing blood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia[/QUOTE]

I guess everyone had the right to marry in 1967 too, per your definition.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Yeah I tend to agree with you. Right now everyone has the right to marry, we just restrict it to man marrying woman. If we are going to redefine marriage why don't we just open it up for everyone?

Because every type of discrimination has its own question - justified or not? For gays, it's not.

Other types may or may not be.

Children? Non-humans? Multiple partners?

And face it, as much as we'd like to say 'let's just say which is which', we'd get a far different answer in 1800 than today, for example regarding blacks.

Just maybe, we still have our own prejudices to 'justify' discrimination.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Yeah I tend to agree with you. Right now everyone has the right to marry, we just restrict it to man marrying woman. If we are going to redefine marriage why don't we just open it up for everyone?
I really get sick of repeating myself so much. Read my other posts in this thread. The notion that the current gender restrictions on marriage constitute civil rights equality is flat-out bullshit.
 

jackace

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2004
1,307
0
0
All I'm saying is I agree with Greenman's logic. If we are going to redefine marriage for 1 group of people, why not do it for others like the polygamists?
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Children? Non-humans? Multiple partners?
Child marriage is the best thing ever if you live in a culture where you buy your wife. If you have a daughter, selling her pre-teen butt to some 40 year old pedophile could be worth a lot of money.


All I'm saying is I agree with Greenman's logic. If we are going to redefine marriage for 1 group of people, why not do it for others like the polygamists?
I support this too. If some guy wants to pay alimony to 5 women at once then that's his problem, not mine.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
If everyone is denied a right equally, then everyone is included, you small-minded twit.

I agree with your statement. Since all men and women are denied the "right" to same sex marriage, then there is no discrimination. More to the point, this discussion isn't about the right to marry, we all have that, it's about redefining what marriage is. My point being that if we're going to redefine it, lets include everyone.

I find it interesting that you call me small minded, but I'm the guy who want's everyone to enjoy the benefits of marriage, while you want to limit it to a chosen few. It's one of those things that makes you go hmmmmmm.

You are correct - there is no discrimination. Whether you are gay or straight, you can not have same sex marriage.

Let's look at a similar example. All men and women are denied the right to marry Black people.

Since everyone is denied a right equally, there is absolutely NO discrimination right?

Small minded? Sorry, you don't qualify. Microscopic, perhaps.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
All I'm saying is I agree with Greenman's logic. If we are going to redefine marriage for 1 group of people, why not do it for others like the polygamists?
There is no redefinition of marriage being proposed. There is only restrictions on who can access marriage that are being lifted.

Briefly, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is a contract. Right now, there is a legal restriction on who can sign the contract. If we remove the restriction, and allow any two people to sign the contract, has the substance of the contract changed? No. That's why your idea is bullshit.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,027
29,925
146
one member here once made an excellent confucian-esque comment regarding the gay marriage issue that pretty much sums up everything; and honestly, seems to me the most valid perspective. it goes like this:

"One who does not want a gay marriage, should not get a gay marriage."

Bam!

/issue

 

jackace

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2004
1,307
0
0
There is no redefinition of marriage being proposed. There is only restrictions on who can access marriage that are being lifted.

Briefly, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is a contract. Right now, there is a legal restriction on who can sign the contract. If we remove the restriction, and allow any two people to sign the contract, has the substance of the contract changed? No. That's why your idea is bullshit.

A legal restriction is part of a legal definition. So changing restrictions is also changing the definition, but now we are just arguing semantics. We also have legal restrictions on how many people someone can marry. Why can't we lift those too?

Edit - All I'm trying to point out is we have many forms of discrimination in our laws and they are all deemed acceptable until a large enough population starts making a stink.
 
Last edited:

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,578
4,658
136
though it'd be said to see anti-gay bigotry

Just because someone disagrees with this ruling does not make them automatically an anti-gay bigot. I disagree with the ruling based on my own personal morals.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |